The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump is ineligible to run for the White House again, citing the former president’s role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol as the reason, in a 4-3 decision that is likely to have significant legal and political ramifications for the 2024 general elections.
The decision removes Trump from the state’s Republican presidential primary elections and stems from a rarely used provision of the U.S. Constitution, known as the insurrection clause.
Trump’s campaign has promised to immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may overturn the decision. Similar actions are pending in the courts of other states.
Here’s what is known so far and what this could mean for the former president and current Republican leader.
What is the insurrection clause and why was it used?
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision marks the first time a candidate has been deemed ineligible for the White House based on this constitutional provision.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the insurrection clause, prohibits any person from Congress, military, and federal and state agency officials who – once having taken an oath to support the Constitution – have “engaged” in an “insurrection or rebellion” against it (the Constitution).
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment helped secure civil rights for formerly enslaved people but also aimed to prevent former Confederate officials from regaining power as members of Congress and taking over the government against which they had just rebelled.
Some legal scholars argue that the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump due to his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election and obstructing the transfer of power to Joe Biden, encouraging supporters to storm the Capitol.
How did we reach this verdict?
The case was brought by a group of Colorado voters, assisted by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), which argued that Trump should be disqualified from voting due to his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
The highest court in Colorado overturned a previous decision by a district judge, who concluded that Trump’s actions on January 6 amounted to inciting an insurrection but stated that the Republican could not be barred from running because it was unclear whether the clause included the office of President of the Republic.
The majority of the seven judges on the state Supreme Court, all appointed by Democratic governors, disagreed.
Has this happened before?
The provision has rarely been used, and never in a case of such great impact. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a socialist, claiming he had given aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies during World War I.
Last year, in the first use of the clause since then, a judge in New Mexico barred a rural county commissioner who had entered the Capitol on January 6 from remaining in office.
What does this mean for next year’s presidential elections?
The Colorado decision applies only to the state’s Republican primaries, scheduled for March 5. This means Trump will not be able to appear on the ballot in that election unless the country’s Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and thus the decision will be suspended until a final verdict is given by the Supreme judges.
Trump did not mention the decision during a rally on Tuesday night (19) in Iowa, but his campaign sent out a fundraising email calling it a “tyrannical decision” with the following statement:
“Democratic Party leaders are in a state of paranoia due to the growing and dominant leadership that President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in Biden’s failed presidency and are now doing everything they can to prevent American voters from ousting them from office next November.”
Trump’s lawyers, however, argued that the wording of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency. A Trump attorney also argued that the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol was not serious enough to qualify as an insurrection, and that any comments Trump made to his supporters that day in Washington were protected by free speech.
Source: The Guardian